Doping in XC skiing

[Tubeless]

Saltin said something else I found interesting. He thinks altitude training in the off-season has no long lasting physiological benefits after returning to sea level. It's only meaningful in the weeks prior to a targeted event.

If the target race is at sea level, altitude training has proven useful only for some. However, if the race is at altitude, altitude training just prior to the race is deemed beneficial / necessary - and earlier stays at altitude that training season will help the body adapt more quickly to a repeat stay in altitude.

Most of the adaptations relate to physiology other than the often-discussed increase in red blood cell mass. Any meaningful increase in Hkr or Hb typically required staying a minimum of 3 weeks at altitude. A 7-10 day stay will help the body go through the adaptation of plasma volume (which goes down in the early days in altitude, and correct back up after 4-7 days), breathing frequency and basic blood oxygen saturation. Extra red blood cells would be highly useful for performance, but difficult to obtain as a practical matter without resorting to doping.

 

[kottila]

As far as I've read, it appears that the knowledge about EPO were shared across all sports and countries and almost all of it can be linked to a small number of doctors functioning as the central nodes of information. Seeing that no Norwegian (at least in XC) have ever been mentioned in relation to them, wouldn't that imply that the small country Norway (including Sweden?) established a EPO network completely independent that doped the athletes even better than those who could gather information from the entire network and without a single person breaking the silence after so many years? that sounds extremely unlikely in my opinion.

 

[the sceptic]

I dont think the Swedish used EPO in the 90s. The results speak for themselves.

However the norwegians dominated against a bunch of known dopers. They had sky high hb values. Too much that doesnt add up. I know that norwegians will point out that norwegians had better skis, better talents, etc. But can you really make up for all the minutes you lose by not using EPO? sounds impossible to me.

 

[Cloxxki]

I dont think the Swedish used EPO in the 90s. The results speak for themselves.

However the norwegians dominated against a bunch of known dopers. They had sky high hb values. Too much that doesnt add up. I know that norwegians will point out that norwegians had better skis, better talents, etc. But can you really make up for all the minutes you lose by not using EPO? sounds impossible to me.

On the one hand, huge emphasis, is still increasingly put on ski prep.
Yet when I wax my own skis (or don't wax them at all, ever), I just cannot get them to show any glide-out difference. Even high fluor doesn't change glide-out a bit. Got a new stone grind, didn't help. Just other skis help me, and then they don't need any wax or anything.
The huge wax trucks and planes they now have seem like decoys. It's nice to have for sure, but not a valid excuse. Some top skiers from tiny teams nearly always have awesome skis (Darya Domracheva)

With XC being so heavy on climbing, and feeling fit through the downhills, it would take a top member of an inexistent humanoid superrace to take on an EPO'd Italian or whatever skier. Tests have shown that. I seem to remember a retired biathlete was (for anti-doping research) put on EPO and the improvement was staggering.

 

[meat puppet]

To be fair, the skis' qualities (flex profiles and their suitability to the conditions at hand, etc) probably count even more than waxing, IMO. That's why the teams have significant amounts of pairs with them. Nonetheless, I completely agree with your more general point, Cloxxki.

As for the rest of the discussion, I think that the aggregated data from the 90s are way more important than nationalities. I don't even care who wins provided there is enough variation as between the individuals and some consistency thruout the season.

 

[kottila]

On the one hand, huge emphasis, is still increasingly put on ski prep.
Yet when I wax my own skis (or don't wax them at all, ever), I just cannot get them to show any glide-out difference. Even high fluor doesn't change glide-out a bit. Got a new stone grind, didn't help. Just other skis help me, and then they don't need any wax or anything.
The huge wax trucks and planes they now have seem like decoys. It's nice to have for sure, but not a valid excuse. Some top skiers from tiny teams nearly always have awesome skis (Darya Domracheva)

With XC being so heavy on climbing, and feeling fit through the downhills, it would take a top member of an inexistent humanoid superrace to take on an EPO'd Italian or whatever skier. Tests have shown that. I seem to remember a retired biathlete was (for anti-doping research) put on EPO and the improvement was staggering.

If you seriously believe that prepping is not extremely important (both for grip and glide) then you don't follow much skiibg. Not having a good grip takes so much energy out of you that you won't have a chance.

Why do you think they switch skiis as often as possible during the duathlon? Hint: it has to do with ski prepping

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

Found this nonsense at VGD.

I følge Lerheim så indikerte de blodtester man tok i OL-94 ikke noe misbruk blant medaljevinnerene. Det kan se ut til at det gikk et skille mellom 94 og 95 hvor jo blodverdier tyder på et omfattende bruk.

The italians were mega-juiced in -94. Click 'Danskerlægen - del 2' in the link below and watch from 11:55-15:40.

http://www.dr.dk/Sporten/Dokumentar/Doping/20050530140756.htm

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

- Det er riktig, men de testene vi tok på de fire beste pluss to på loddtrekning fra hver konkurranse, både individuelt og i stafett, viste ingen abnorme blodverdier. Vi hadde ingen indisier på at utøvere hadde tatt noe som ville gi dem fordeler, sier Lereim.

- Om utøvere hadde tatt EPO, så kunne vi ikke påvise det, men de hadde i hvert fall ikke for høye blodverdier.

http://sport.aftenposten.no/sport/article255092.ece

Now look at the italian hematocrits. How full of crap is Lereim?

 

[Tubeless]

As far as I've read, it appears that the knowledge about EPO were shared across all sports and countries and almost all of it can be linked to a small number of doctors functioning as the central nodes of information. Seeing that no Norwegian (at least in XC) have ever been mentioned in relation to them, wouldn't that imply that the small country Norway (including Sweden?) established a EPO network completely independent that doped the athletes even better than those who could gather information from the entire network and without a single person breaking the silence after so many years? that sounds extremely unlikely in my opinion.

As we have learned from Tyler's book and other sources in cycling, it was simply not possible to be competitive against EPO-dopers clean. Look at these Men's 30km classic results from the 1995 World Championships in Thunder Bay, Canada:

http://www.fis-ski.com/uk/604/610.html?sector=CC&raceid=647

Notes:
- This was before the Hb limits were established starting in 1997
- The effect of EPO was known to all, no EPO test existed
- Known EPO dopers at the time: Italians, Finns, Russians
- The 4 minute gap between 1st place and 10th place is simply amazing
- Rumor has it that Smirnov's Hb was 21 (comparable to Bjarne Riis' reported Hkr of 63.2 at the 1996 Tour de France)

And now look which country took positions 2, 7 and 8. Anyone who thinks that Norwegians did not participate in the EPO party of the 1990's is blind and ignorant. You have to give them credit for keeping the secret, but that does not mean they were clean. Germans almost certainly doped as well (positions 10, 12, 17) but no one has exposed their doping program either.

Skis (flex, grind, wax) can indeed make a difference - but nowhere near 4 minutes over 30km against other skiers who have access to the best ski prep money can buy.

 

[Velo1ticker]

As we have learned from Tyler's book and other sources in cycling, it was simply not possible to be competitive against EPO-dopers clean. Look at these Men's 30km classic results from the 1995 World Championships in Thunder Bay, Canada:

http://www.fis-ski.com/uk/604/610.html?sector=CC&raceid=647

Notes:
- This was before the Hb limits were established starting in 1997
- The effect of EPO was known to all, no EPO test existed
- Known EPO dopers at the time: Italians, Finns, Russians
- The 4 minute gap between 1st place and 10th place is simply amazing
- Rumor has it that Smirnov's Hb was 21 (comparable to Bjarne Riis' reported Hkr of 63.2 at the 1996 Tour de France)

And now look which country took positions 2, 7 and 8. Anyone who thinks that Norwegians did not participate in the EPO party of the 1990's is blind and ignorant. You have to give them credit for keeping the secret, but that does not mean they were clean. Germans almost certainly doped as well (positions 10, 12, 17) but no one has exposed their doping program either.

Skis (flex, grind, wax) can indeed make a difference - but nowhere near 4 minutes over 30km against other skiers who have access to the best ski prep money can buy.

The question is how stupid do want to pretend you are? What do think is going on about 40 sec into this clip from the 30 km?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNRcNuQwS-g

You need to take the situation into consideration. Russia, Finland and Italy could not have any meaningful recruitment as everyone needed to join the dope club if the wanted to participate. These nations’ had worked for decades to find the best dope and ways to hide the cheating. What if someone actually used their recourses in a meaningful way and that their budget was lager than the competitors? All you got, and you seem to agree with me, is some results. If someone beat your doped up Italian favorite they are cheating whereas your dope friend get a seat in the parliament thanks to dope. If you don't understand what makes a good skier you will certainly conclude that all winners are doped!

 

[romnom]

Regarding 30 year old accusations you need to know that the Norwegian coach Lundemo accused Finland of doping after 1984 Olympics. Finland claimed it was the other way around. Now we know the facts. Finnish skiers were doped and they have systematically worked with Russia and later on with Italy when doing dope. There is nothing new about Norway and Sweden in the documentary and it is clearly a rewrite of the 1984 statement “we are innocent but everyone else is cheating” to “everybody did take dope”. It was documented that Finland started in the 70’s and it didn’t stop at the Lahti WC 2001 as they have claimed earlier. Judging from recruitment potential and popularly Norway and Sweden should dominating XC skiing – oh wait, that defense is only valid for Spain and Italy. You also dismiss the fact that Norwegians won the first and last race of the season only to miss out on the big prizes in 1970-89. So when the facts don’t fit you change the facts.
Why is it so important to accuse the Norwegian for maybe taking something (in the 90s) when you’ve got people far worse than Lance and Johan in Russia, Italy, Finland for 4 decades.

I'm not sure what your point is. We now know the facts about the Finnish side of the story after they had a huge scandal two decades into the accusations that encouraged people to try and figure out what has been going on. What you tell me is that the Norwegian side of the story still remains exactly the same, nothing to see just bitter idle speculation by dirty competitors. I think there's little to no chance that the Norwegian side of the story is anywhere near as dirty as the Finnish history, but as long as you keep telling me the claims are just the same stuff that has been going on for 30 years I'll stay convinced that you don't want to know what went on. All the dirt coming up from the other countries should encourage people to investigate things, but you seem to think it's the opposite. Somehow others being more dirty means we don't need to know what the less dirty athletes did?

Anyway, if you can't figure out why it is important to know what went on in the 90s, I really doubt you're interested in the sport being clean today. As long as people pass the tests everything is okay. Healthy attitude considering what we know about the success rate of the testing. Norwegians missing out on the biggest prices in 1970-89 and the becoming competitive in the 90s doesn't exactly help your case. Especially when you seem to think it isn't really important to know what the Norwegians maybe did or didn't do back in the 90s. I'm quite OK with people not wanting to know more about that stuff. I find it somewhat interesting when people obviously don't want to know while claiming they do want to know.

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

Manuela Di Centa

11 dec -93: 55.2%

17 jan -94: 50.9%

28 feb -94: 54.2%

4 mar -94: 52.0%


Silvio Fauner

16 dec -93: 40.9%

6 feb -94: 58.0%

Yeah, I'm sure there were no abnormal blood values in Lillehammer, Inggard.

 

[python]

i will leave nationalities out of the post and will try to look into one very controversial issue abstractly, or mechanically if you will.

could an un-doped elite xc skier beat equally talented but a blood-doped competitor during the epo-saturated 90s due to superior ski preparation ?

many on the forum, including some serious posters who know the sport and appreciate the rampant epo history of the 90’s genuinely believe it was possible. they believe that some well preserved and repeatedly applied secrets of superior ski preparation could explain away some ‘clean’ victories.

Could it ?

it would be easy enough to answer the question if we knew with high degree of certainty the fixed percent advantage impacted by each approach. for example, blood boost =5%, ski prep= 3%. Boom 5>3... no way !?

unfortunately, it is not that simple. while studies show that the percent improvement due to blood doping varies greatly from one individual to another, we have recently learned from several sworn affidavits that elite cyclists of pre-epo test days would observe wattage improvements in the order of 3-5% when compared to themselves undoped. it would be reasonable to assume, though i do appreciate the difference between the 2 sports, that the blood-doped elite xc skiers of the 90s would experience a similar magnitude improvement.

but can a secret superior ski preparation - and I stress, at the world-cup level - provide a 3-5% advantage that could deliver a winning recipe year after year ?

if you assumed i know the answer, you are wrong. i don’t, despite being a xc ski fanatic all my life. that’s why i spent some time researching the answer. to my disappointment, I found no solid, reliable numbers. they simply don’t exist. at least, they don't exist in the public domain. i mean, there are some commercial and anecdotal claims by ski equipment vendors, but I do not consider them scientifically adequate for my comparisons to blood doping.

for example, there was a plausible claim that with the introduction of 3d generation fluorocarbon waxes friction coefficient went down by 2%. i buy that. i also found quite reasonable claims, even when compared to my own experience, that the properly applied glide wax to the professionally ground-stoned ski base gave an advantage of about 1-3%.

But what about 3-5% ? well, if it does exists, it’s not public and wont be found in those peer reviewed journals. this is a fact simply because of the very long skiing tradition of keeping waxing kitchen's secrets tight...

now, let’s engage some common sense. is it possible to keep a winning waxing recipe secret for a decade ? particularly in the age of the internet and the unprecedented fluid cross-employment of coaches, technicians, consultants etc. ? my answer - unlikely !

then there is the serious swedish research claiming that with the introduction of HDPE and particularly UHMWPE ski bases, the water repellent proprieties of the most advanced waxes were simply over commercialized and their effect small at best.

for this and the other reason outlined above (in red) i’m inclined to believe that the almost unlimited blood doping of the 90’s would trounce the best ski preparation each and every time.

nowadays, in the age of micro-dosing and blood passport things are different. but only in scale. not in principle.

 

[Bavarianrider]

The question is how stupid do want to pretend you are? What do think is going on about 40 sec into this clip from the 30 km?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNRcNuQwS-g

You need to take the situation into consideration. Russia, Finland and Italy could not have any meaningful recruitment as everyone needed to join the dope club if the wanted to participate. These nations’ had worked for decades to find the best dope and ways to hide the cheating. What if someone actually used their recourses in a meaningful way and that their budget was lager than the competitors? All you got, and you seem to agree with me, is some results. If someone beat your doped up Italian favorite they are cheating whereas your dope friend get a seat in the parliament thanks to dope. If you don't understand what makes a good skier you will certainly conclude that all winners are doped!

There is no doubt that you couldn't win a damn thing without EPO in the 90es. However, looking at one result only, especially a classic race, can be very dangerous.
In general, one can conclude that most certainly Norwegians, and Italians were leading in terms team wide of juicing in the 90es.
As for the Germans, i don't believe they were really on the juice in the 90es. At least not that heavily. Back in those days, it was already astonihsing if a German finished in the Top Ten. However, suddenly after 2002 Germans were jumping into the world class. Certainly something must have changed. I highjly doubt they got that much better over night.
Same for Mühlegg. He totally dominated as a Juniror, but in the 90es he wa sno more then a Top 10 guy at best. Then in 2000 things suddenly changed.
You can guess why. Was it cause Mühlegg started doping while everybody else was clean? Or was it more that Mühlegg as well as the other Germans started to do what Norwegians and Italians had done longe before

 

[Bavarianrider]

The Austrians are of interest, too.
I mean they went from beings scrubbs in the mid 90es to winning medals in 98 the relay in 99 and gold medals in 2002.
I mean comme on.
Actually this pattern was redone recently as the Austrian biathletes all of a sudden were setting the pace around the year 2009.
However, after the Human Plasma thing came out, they went back to normal again.

 

[Alesle]

...
But what about 3-5% ? well, if it does exists, it’s not public and wont be found in those peer reviewed journals. this is a fact simply because of the very long skiing tradition of keeping waxing kitchen's secrets tight...
...

The most interesting easily available article I found on the subject was a french one that suggested "In V1-skating, the expertise level of skier is preponderant; but on equal expertise level, the difference on the performance between a good and a bad choice of topography and waxing of the ski sole varies between 3 and 10% of the course time."

The article itself is in French, which to say the least isn't exactly my strong suit, but as I understand the article (with the help of google translate), it only considers the difference between "good and bad" waxing/grinding. I doubt the differences in waxing/grinding is (was) consistently that big at the top international level, but at least the article provides some numbers.

 

[Velo1ticker]

I'm not sure what your point is. We now know the facts about the Finnish side of the story after they had a huge scandal two decades into the accusations that encouraged people to try and figure out what has been going on. What you tell me is that the Norwegian side of the story still remains exactly the same, nothing to see just bitter idle speculation by dirty competitors. I think there's little to no chance that the Norwegian side of the story is anywhere near as dirty as the Finnish history, but as long as you keep telling me the claims are just the same stuff that has been going on for 30 years I'll stay convinced that you don't want to know what went on. All the dirt coming up from the other countries should encourage people to investigate things, but you seem to think it's the opposite. Somehow others being more dirty means we don't need to know what the less dirty athletes did?

Anyway, if you can't figure out why it is important to know what went on in the 90s, I really doubt you're interested in the sport being clean today. As long as people pass the tests everything is okay. Healthy attitude considering what we know about the success rate of the testing. Norwegians missing out on the biggest prices in 1970-89 and the becoming competitive in the 90s doesn't exactly help your case. Especially when you seem to think it isn't really important to know what the Norwegians maybe did or didn't do back in the 90s. I'm quite OK with people not wanting to know more about that stuff. I find it somewhat interesting when people obviously don't want to know while claiming they do want to know.

The point is that we know a lot about who did what, nevertheless you and your pals point out those people we know didn’t take any dope. If you worked for thirty years to find the best way to take dope do you at the same time develop the best no doping training, equipment and testing regime? Add to that small budgets and a lot smaller pool talent to choose from. For example did 2840 Norwegians traveled to Italy for the Marcialonga compared to 2314 Italians of a total of 7200 participants in 2012. That’s a 40% share! Norway should be dominating the CX skiing based on participation, hence it is back the norm not the other way around. Earth calling romnom: You have twisted the facts.
“Norwegians missing out on the biggest prices in 1970-89 and the becoming competitive in the 90s doesn't exactly help your case. Especially when you seem to think it isn't really important to know what the Norwegians maybe did or didn't do back in the 90s.” No! What I am saying is that accusation based on nothing gets you nowhere.
You take pride on winning the ****ing contest not the getting the facts right. Not wanting to know is just BS. If you do not understand my English, please do not comment my statements as you have already stated that you off the mark. A question should be asked but when you give an interpretation on something you do not understand is indicative of how you blindly accuse people without a shred of evidence. Again, if you start counting the numbers of skiers and their budgets you will find out that Norway should be on top (for once – in a microsport), so your logic isn’t what most people would consider to be normal. Skiing isn’t an Italian or Austrian sport and it haven’t been and it probably never will be.
Here’s a follow up on the 1984 accusation made by Lundemo. Facts or BS as you like call it.
http://www.dagbladet.no/2012/11/27/sport/doping/ski/24570534/

 

[the sceptic]

I think Norwegians owe a thank you to all the doped finns, italians and russians in the 90s. Imagine how boring skiing would have been if everyone was racing clean.

Norwegians would get top 3 in every race, and the first non norwegian would be minutes behind. Not very exciting.

 

[meat puppet]

What we are trying to talk about is the FIS numbers that scream EPO and blood doping during the 90s. This is to be expected, since it is pretty much established that everyone was on the good stuff. The numbers are aggregated and show no national bias whatsoever, they just corroborate what is basically commonly known.

Or, if you want it the other way, how global warming or somesuch prevents athletes from hitting the magic 18+ g /dl or more via altitude training today.

It is sound to argue that countries where skiing is popular and well resourced are expected to do well. The question is simply "is it 12/15 olympic gold medals against known dopers" well?

 

[Tubeless]

The point is that we know a lot about who did what, nevertheless you and your pals point out those people we know didn’t take any dope. If you worked for thirty years to find the best way to take dope do you at the same time develop the best no doping training, equipment and testing regime? Add to that small budgets and a lot smaller pool talent to choose from. For example did 2840 Norwegians traveled to Italy for the Marcialonga compared to 2314 Italians of a total of 7200 participants in 2012. That’s a 40% share! Norway should be dominating the CX skiing based on participation, hence it is back the norm not the other way around. Earth calling romnom: You have twisted the facts.
“Norwegians missing out on the biggest prices in 1970-89 and the becoming competitive in the 90s doesn't exactly help your case. Especially when you seem to think it isn't really important to know what the Norwegians maybe did or didn't do back in the 90s.” No! What I am saying is that accusation based on nothing gets you nowhere.
You take pride on winning the ****ing contest not the getting the facts right. Not wanting to know is just BS. If you do not understand my English, please do not comment my statements as you have already stated that you off the mark. A question should be asked but when you give an interpretation on something you do not understand is indicative of how you blindly accuse people without a shred of evidence. Again, if you start counting the numbers of skiers and their budgets you will find out that Norway should be on top (for once – in a microsport), so your logic isn’t what most people would consider to be normal. Skiing isn’t an Italian or Austrian sport and it haven’t been and it probably never will be.
Here’s a follow up on the 1984 accusation made by Lundemo. Facts or BS as you like call it.
http://www.dagbladet.no/2012/11/27/sport/doping/ski/24570534/

There's a curious analogy to the Armstrong case here. His fanboys wanted to believe in the cancer miracle, and would not want to believe any rational arguments as to how it's impossible that a clean rider could go mano-mano with doped up Pantani up Mt Ventoux.

The fanboys said it was Armstrong's more advanced riding position, or his simple determination and focus that made all the difference. Armstrong was clean because he had never been caught in a doping test. And when he got close to getting caught, he had friends in high places at the UCI to let him off the hook.

The defenders of the Norwegians say it was their superior ski grinding techniques and bigger waxing team that gave them all the advantage. This is frankly BS. At the 2010 Vancouver Olympics, the Norwegian wax team was at least twice the size of the next biggest team - yet the Swedes had the best skis. Ski flex which is considered 60-70% of the benefit is primarily done by the ski factories and not nationalized - each country team skies on multiple brands.

Norwegians also had friends in high places. It is well known that the FIS medical commission that oversees the testing program was known to alert their own countrymen for changes in testing procedures. The Finns think this is what got them caught at the 2001 Lahti World Championships - the Norwegians were tipped off for testing the Hemohes plasma expander, but the Finns never got the warning. The drop in Norwegian performance at those World Champs would seem to support this theory - despite having the best skis and being the dominant nordic skiing country in the world ;-)

But all of the above is academic. We're talking about the wild 1990's when there were no Hb limits, no EPO test and the knowledge and availability of EPO was widespread. There was serious money to be made for winning and a guarantee for not getting caught. I've yet to see a rational argument why a professional ski racer would not dope under these circumstances. It happened it cycling and it would be totally naive to think it did not happen in other sports.

 

[Velo1ticker]

There's a curious analogy to the Armstrong case here. His fanboys wanted to believe in the cancer miracle, and would not want to believe any rational arguments as to how it's impossible that a clean rider could go mano-mano with doped up Pantani up Mt Ventoux.

The fanboys said it was Armstrong's more advanced riding position, or his simple determination and focus that made all the difference. Armstrong was clean because he had never been caught in a doping test. And when he got close to getting caught, he had friends in high places at the UCI to let him off the hook.

The defenders of the Norwegians say it was their superior ski grinding techniques and bigger waxing team that gave them all the advantage. This is frankly BS. At the 2010 Vancouver Olympics, the Norwegian wax team was at least twice the size of the next biggest team - yet the Swedes had the best skis. Ski flex which is considered 60-70% of the benefit is primarily done by the ski factories and not nationalized - each country team skies on multiple brands.

Norwegians also had friends in high places. It is well known that the FIS medical commission that oversees the testing program was known to alert their own countrymen for changes in testing procedures. The Finns think this is what got them caught at the 2001 Lahti World Championships - the Norwegians were tipped off for testing the Hemohes plasma expander, but the Finns never got the warning. The drop in Norwegian performance at those World Champs would seem to support this theory - despite having the best skis and being the dominant nordic skiing country in the world ;-)

But all of the above is academic. We're talking about the wild 1990's when there were no Hb limits, no EPO test and the knowledge and availability of EPO was widespread. There was serious money to be made for winning and a guarantee for not getting caught. I've yet to see a rational argument why a professional ski racer would not dope under these circumstances. It happened it cycling and it would be totally naive to think it did not happen in other sports.

You’re working on your smoke signal skills?

In 2001 only two labs could detect Homohes (Finland and Germany). Do you actually think Norwegians controlled the Finnish lab? Finnish labs warn the Norwegian and forget about their own. There is no limit your BS. Bet you don’t even believe it yourself but you’re on an agenda.
Furthermore if the biggest wax team gets it slightly wrong (pre prep/wax problems) and the second biggest wax team gets it right someone is doped. Add to that that they had it fixed Petter’s skis after a couple of events. Your knowledge of ski prepping is embarrassing. If you ever want to know you should find out what skies each Norwegian used during the 50 km in Holmenkollen 2011 (they could change skis 4 times during the race). Then you find out that size and pooling your recourses do make a difference.
Why don’t you check out Sture Sivertsen blood values? When you have maybe it becomes clear that there may be rotten apples everywhere but definitively not everyone in the Norwegian team. I think Sivertsen is happy about the altitude for the Falun WC and Lillehammer Olympics.

 

[meat puppet]

In 2001 only two labs could detect Homohes (Finland and Germany). Do you actually think Norwegians controlled the Finnish lab? Finnish labs warn the Norwegian and forget about their own. There is no limit your BS. Bet you don’t even believe it yourself but you’re on an agenda.

The story has it that before the games the Finnish management contacted Tapio Wideman (FIN), who was then the vice president of the FIS medical committee. Twice actually, if I recall correctly. Wideman gave the green light and claimed that Hemohes would not be tested for, let alone detected. Didn't turn out that way.

After the first pop (Isometsä) the Finns learnt their lesson, though not immediately. But during the games they started to bring the blood values down with human albumin, just like the rest allegedly did. According to Kyrö the teams were very open about manipulating blood values downwards (and I buy that claim). But, of course, a) there were athletes glowing with Hemohes and b) because of the first pop, the Finns were tested with more accurate measures than was the standard.

Now, I used the word story deliberately, since there are probably a ton of other recollections. This one, however, was presented in the mainstream media in Finland. All in all, it is quite clear to me that the Finns and the FIS both tried to play one another. The coverup of Kuitunen's too high HB in december 2000 clearly indicates that the FIS knew what was going on.

 

[romnom]

The point is that we know a lot about who did what, nevertheless you and your pals point out those people we know didn’t take any dope. If you worked for thirty years to find the best way to take dope do you at the same time develop the best no doping training, equipment and testing regime? Add to that small budgets and a lot smaller pool talent to choose from. For example did 2840 Norwegians traveled to Italy for the Marcialonga compared to 2314 Italians of a total of 7200 participants in 2012. That’s a 40% share! Norway should be dominating the CX skiing based on participation, hence it is back the norm not the other way around. Earth calling romnom: You have twisted the facts.
“Norwegians missing out on the biggest prices in 1970-89 and the becoming competitive in the 90s doesn't exactly help your case. Especially when you seem to think it isn't really important to know what the Norwegians maybe did or didn't do back in the 90s.” No! What I am saying is that accusation based on nothing gets you nowhere.
You take pride on winning the ****ing contest not the getting the facts right. Not wanting to know is just BS. If you do not understand my English, please do not comment my statements as you have already stated that you off the mark. A question should be asked but when you give an interpretation on something you do not understand is indicative of how you blindly accuse people without a shred of evidence. Again, if you start counting the numbers of skiers and their budgets you will find out that Norway should be on top (for once – in a microsport), so your logic isn’t what most people would consider to be normal. Skiing isn’t an Italian or Austrian sport and it haven’t been and it probably never will be.
Here’s a follow up on the 1984 accusation made by Lundemo. Facts or BS as you like call it.
http://www.dagbladet.no/2012/11/27/sport/doping/ski/24570534/

I'm curious where I started making accusations about any athletes using anything. I also have no clue who my pals are, but that's okay. My point is and has been that people generally don't want to know about what went on 20 years ago. Especially when there's no obvious red flag that encourages people to investigate. I've said plenty on times I have no reason to believe the Norwegians are even remotely as bad as the Finns when it comes to doping, but I am assuming that in the 90s when EPO came along there are likely to have been athletes that never tested positive and had long and successful careers in the sport while doping. I don't really have any need to accuse anyone of anything beyond that. I just accept that with the current information it's impossible for me to know who was clean and who was dirty. You choose to know for sure that some specific athletes were clean. I'm sure you have your reasons to do so, all I know is that the ones that dope always say they are clean and the testing has never really been up to date. Makes it really hard to know who is clean and who is dirty for me at least.

The point about the 90s is that we know certain drugs emerged back then that when abused significantly increased the possible benefits for the dirty athletes. I have no issues with Norwegians dominating the sport of skiing, the only problem with them recovering their rightful status in the 90s is that if you assume just about every other country dirty it's hard to assume all Norwegians as being clean at the same time. If all Norwegians were clean back then, I'd assume most of the other countries were a lot cleaner than expected as well. The blood values and the upper limits for hgb sort of suggest something was going on but I'm certainly not qualified to know anything for sure. I do embrace the uncertainty though. Now since I don't share your emotional investment in the issue, you can go on and crush me in the ****ing contest. I still don't think you want to know what went on in the 90s and I don't really believe the Norwegians in general are all that keen to investigate it. That's an opinion, not an accusation. For all I know, all the Norwegians might be clean. Happy?

Oh, and I'm not sure why you think doping would lead to inferior training, equipment and testing. Training is likely to be enhanced with the drugs thanks to better recovery and higher intensity and there is absolutely no reason why dirty athletes wouldn't try to get the legal advantages from equipment. Not doing so would make them incredibly stupid, which in all fairness might be true for some. But as a general assumption I think it's pretty flawed to think dopers only focus on doping. If anything, they focus on abusing any legal or illegal advantage available, so the competition on the legal stuff is pretty even. No doubt some are better than others, but the drugs are a hell of a handicap overcome.

 

[python]

still uneasy after the finnish documentary accusations, the norwegians released en mass their haemoglobin values:

http://www.dagbladet.no/sport/2001/03/06/245493.html

i welcome this step in the right direction but a few comments must be made to put the step in the context:

1. these are the results of the quarterly 'health' checks, not the blood passport.
2. haemoglobin by itself (iow, without %rets) is hardly a reliable indicator of the absence of blood doping. in fact, numerous plasma expanders are a classic, fast and reliable masking method. (tyler called them 'speed bags' that take only 10-15 minutes)
3. while marit's values are there, the values everyone wants to see - northug's are curiously absent.

4. not trying to diminish the norwegian step, but as we well know from the dark past, such proven dopers like armstrong, rasmussen and scores of others
have also published their values (in fact, in much greater detail) while they were certifiably doping.

 

[romnom]

still uneasy after the finnish documentary accusations, the norwegians released en mass their haemoglobin values:

http://www.dagbladet.no/sport/2001/03/06/245493.html

i welcome this step in the right direction but a few comments must be made to put the step in the context:

1. these are the results of the quarterly 'health' checks, not the blood passport.
2. haemoglobin by itself (iow, without %rets) is hardly a reliable indicator of the absence of blood doping. in fact, numerous plasma expanders are a classic, fast and reliable masking method. (tyler called them 'speed bags' that take only 10-15 minutes)
3. while marit's values are there, the values everyone wants to see - northug's are curiously absent.

4. not trying to diminish the norwegian step, but as we well know from the dark past, such proven dopers like armstrong, rasmussen and scores of others
have also published their values (in fact, in much greater detail) while they were certifiably doping.

I think your narrative might be a bit off. Isn't this stuff from the year 2001?